Posts Tagged ‘ghostbusters’

Whilst coming to the end of writing my first extensive look at why a certain “horror” franchise failed to produce quality films, I was made aware of a mini-craze amongst film reviewers on social media in which they reveal their favourite film from each year that they’ve been alive.

At first I had no interest in taking part, but then I thought that it might be fun to see what came out each year I was alive. One thing that I quickly realised that there are some years in which there were few standout films for me, 1990 and 2005 being particularly sparse, whereas I really struggled just to pick one from 1994 as as well as what I chose, there were so many entries that were not only great, but would top many top tens around the world.

So I was born in 1984 and will therefore start there. In the interest of fairness I am only going to consider films that were released at the cinema.

1984 – Ghostbusters
1985 – The Goonies
1986 – The Fly
1987 – Spaceballs
1988 – Willow
1989 – Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure
1990 – Night of the Living Dead
1991 – Terminator 2 : Judgement Day
1992 – A League of Their Own

1993 – Jurassic Park
1994 – The Shawshank Redemption
1995 – Mortal Kombat
1996 – Star Trek : First Contact
1997 – The Fifth Element
1998 – The Truman Show
1999 – Fight Club

2000 – American Psycho
2001 – The Lord of the Rings : The Fellowship of the Ring
2002 – 28 Days Later
2003 – Pirates of the Caribbean : The Curse of the Black Pearl
2004 – Troy
2005 – Land of the Dead
2006 – Lucky Number Slevin

2007 – No Country for Old Men
2008 – The Dark Knight
2009 – Star Trek
2010 – Scott Pilgrim vs the World
2011 – Moneyball
2012 – Avengers : Assemble
2013 – Rush

Then we come onto those that I’ve seen since I started reviewing films for this site. Click on the below links for the full run downs of the top tens from these years.
2014 – Nightcrawler
2015 – No Escape
2016 – Captain Fantastic
2017 – TBD

So we’re now into the top half of the countdown for this. We’ve made it through films that, for the most part, I would never go out of my way to watch again. However, don’t assume that just because these films in this list are in the top half that they’re automatically good films. There were a lot of bad films out this year, especially in the latter half of 2016.

So for 50 to 41 we are looking at a variety of films from some very different genres. There are horror films, romantic comedies, stories within stories and arguably the most debated and talked about reboot in recent years.

So here we go.

50) The Girl with All The Giftsthe-girl-with-all-the-gifts-movie-poster

Cast : Sennia Nanua, Paddy Considine, Gemma Arterton and Glenn Close

Plot : A zombie outbreak has decimated the population of the UK, leaving the majority of those that have survived in army bases. They have learnt however that the outbreak can be controlled and children at the key, not showing any signs of zombism unless they are exposed to flesh inches from their face. They are taught in a classroom by Helen (Arterton), who notices very early on that Melanie (Nanua) is her brightest student.

Zombies quickly break through the fence, leaving only a handful of survivors able to escape, and they soon realise that Melanie might their only hope of survival, but what will she make of the outside world, especially when an opportunity arises?

Why in this position? : If you took out the first fifteen and the final ten minutes then this would have been an excellent zombie flick, even though it had the distinct disadvantage of having the diabolically uncharismatic void of emotion that is Gemma Arterton in it.

The middle hour or so of the film is arguably as good as any other zombie film that I’ve seen set in the open world (as in not confined to a specific location, such as most of George A Romero’s films). That sixty or so minutes are full of tension and genuine threat, and not to forget well built characters. There was actually a time that I was considering this for a much higher place on the list.

However, as I’ve mentioned, the first fifteen and the final ten minutes are, for lack of a better word, just not very good. The central character of Melanie just isn’t that interesting, and is the equivalent of that kid in school that would bring the teacher an apple (well, we don’t really do that in England, but I imagine it’s still a thing in America). This isn’t helped by the aforementioned bland acting of Gemma Arterton.

Combine this with an ending that is a bit out of left field (another American saying), and I couldn’t really consider this movie to be anything more than average, at best.


49) Ghostbustersghostbusters_ver11

Cast : Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Chris Hemsworth and Neil Casey

Plot : Abby (McCarthy) and Erin (Wiig) are both highly respected scientists, but when the latter objects to the re-release of a book about paranormal activity that they co-wrote several years ago. They do team up to investigate a reported case of paranormal activity with Abby’s colleague, Jillian (McKinnon). Their video of the incident sees all three fired.

They decide to continue to invest all of their time hunting evidence of paranormal activity, but they soon start getting into more than they bargained for.

Why in this position? I think it’s fair to say that there were no films released this year that divided opinion and caused as many arguments as “Ghostbusters”. My own personal concern was that it just didn’t look funny, or at least not compared to the previous films in the franchise, and I think there in lies the problem. Had this just been a film about ghost hunting that didn’t use the name “Ghostbusters” then I think this would have fared far more favourably than it did.

I didn’t mind “Ghostbusters”, it wasn’t a classic in any sense of the world, but it could be considerably worse to put it nicely. The acting from the four lead women is decent enough, which is something that I never thought I’d say about Melissa McCarthy, but it is most definitely Chris Hemsworth that steals the show as the charmingly stupid Kevin.

I actually quite liked the visuals, and despite looking very cartoony in places, I thought it was very vibrant, thus establishing a less serious tone that the original. It’s a technique that can be taken in either a good or bad way, but it helps in some ways separate it from the originals, whilst in many ways paying tribute.

The main problem with the Ghostbusters reboot, other than their attempts to cram in as many references and cameos from the original as possible, is that the antagonist is just so unengaging. The very fact that I had to look up on Google what the antagonist’s name was should tell you all about how unforgettable he is.


48)The Infiltratorinfiltrator

Cast : Bryan Cranston, John Leguizamo, Diane Kruger and Benjamin Bratt

Plot : Special agent Robert Mazur (Cranston) has just successfully come out of his latest undercover role when he is placed under the alias of Bob Musella in order to break into the upper regions of the local drugs cartel, headed by Pablo Escobar. He is placed with the abrasive Emir Abreu (Leguizamo), who struggles to make Mazur believable.

Despite the struggle, Bob does successfully get into the higher reaches of the cartel. Bob’s story is so believable that Kathy Ertz (Kruger) is hired to pretend to be his wife, but its enough to convince many involved, but both feel guilty when they develop a strong personal relationship with Roberto Alcaino (Bratt), making it harder for him to get in.

Why in this position? : When I saw the trailer for this Bryan Cranston lead vice-style film, I got excited. It looked exciting, fresh and had a decent case, but much like several other films on this list, it is largely forgettable.

I went to watch “The Infiltrator” less than 48 hours ago (at the time of writing) and I couldn’t tell you a single character name other than Abreu (obviously I looked them up for the above plot when posting the article), who is played excellently by John Leguizamo. It’s just so forgettable and not really engaging. Leguizamo certainly isn’t the only person putting in a good portrayal, with Cranston doing very well too.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not an awful film by any stretch of the imagination, and it does draw you in quite well, but the problem is that the central plot of the film is the central character climbing the drugs cartel ladder, but it all feels completely effortless. Not once did I feel during the film that the character wasn’t going to achieve that goal (for the record I didn’t know that this was a true story go in).

Not awful, but certainly not great.


47) The Danish Girlthe-danish-girl-eddie-redmayne

Cast : Eddie Redmayne, Alicia Vikander, Matthias Schoenaerts and Ben Whishaw

Plot : Einar (Redmayne) and Gerda (Vikander) are happily married in 1920s Denmark and they are both keen artists. Einar is considerably more successful that his wife, but is willing to help her and wears a dress for one of her portraits, but this reignites his secret desire to be female. Gerda encourages him to go to a party as his female alter-ego, Lili, but whilst there she witnesses her husband kissing another man, Henrik (Whishaw).

With both becoming distraught, Einar realises that he can no longer live as his old self and seeks surgical help, as well as starting to work in a perfume store and starting a relationship with Henrik, all to Gerda’s horror.

Why in this position? : The first film that I saw during 2016 was ultimately one of the most disappointing as it was quite clearly designed to be Oscar-bait. It had a great cast and being transgender myself, I was interested in the subject matter, but ultimately it’s just told in a way that whilst not awful (which is quite clear by the fact that there was 53 films below it in this countdown), just doesn’t get you emotionally invested at all.

Eddie Redmayne is reasonable as the main character, and Alicia Vikander is highly competent in her role, and with a strong supporting cast this should have been a much better film that it ultimately was. Visually the film is great as well and whilst I can’t claim to be an expert on 1920s Denmark, or indeed any point of Denmark’s history, it looks like what you’d expect from a Scandinavian country almost one hundred years ago.

I think the main problem with this is that it seemed to have an aura that it automatically expected to be considered a great film without really having to work overly hard for it. I wouldn’t even class this as a great film about transgenderism, and there are many better films about the subject matter out there that haven’t got the Oscar-bait machine behind it.

It’s not awful, but it’s not something that I’d actively try to see again.


46) Pete’s Dragonpd_teaser_1-sheet_v2alt_lg

Cast : Oakes Fegley, Bryce Dalls Howard, Wes Bentley, Karl Urban and Oona Laurence

Plot : Pete (Fegley for the most part, Levi Alexander aged five) was involved in a car accident when he was five years old that killed his parents. Whilst walking away he is chased by wolves before being saved by a dragon. Over the next few years he adapts to life in the woods, living with his the dragon, whom he calls Elliott. One day he sees other humans though, more specially a girl named Natalie (Laurence), and all of her family eventually manage to find Pete.

He is taken to hospital and cared for by Grace (Howard) and Jack (Bentley), the parents of Natalie, but it’s Natalie’s uncle, Gavin (Urban) that everyone has to worry about as he saw the dragon and intends to use it for financial gain.

Why in this position? I’ve never seen the original animated film, it never really interested me, but one Saturday morning this was on at the cinema I was working at at the time and so I thought “why not?” Whilst it certainly wasn’t a classic, and did drag at times, it wasn’t actually that bad.

Oakes Fegley (what a name by the way) puts in one of the better child performances of the year as Pete, and to be fair the entire cast does a good job. It’s also good to see Karl Urban in the role of an antagonist, but what I especially liked it that he wasn’t an antagonist for the sake of being one, you understand where his character is coming from, and that’s rare for films.

The only problem with “Pete’s Dragon” really is that whilst it develops characters well, there isn’t that much going on for the majority, and I can see why a lot of kids didn’t like it. Even as a 32 year old adult I was getting somewhat bored at times waiting for something to happen. Don’t get me wrong, when it does start happening it’s really good, it just takes a while.


45) Alliedalliedposter

Cast : Brad Pitt, Marion Cotillard and Jared Harris

Plot : Max (Pitt) is sent to Morocco during World War Two to assassinate a high ranking German official, his partner is Marianne (Cotillard), a French spy. The two train relentlessly, with Max’s boss Frank (Harris) keeping a close eye on proceedings. The pair do eventually assassinate the German, as well as several others, and Max celebrates by asking Marianne to marry him.

Why in this position? After a year of marriage and one child later, Max is called into his local headquarters for meeting. He assumes that it is for a promotion, but when he arrives he is told that they believe his wife to be a German spy. They give Max instructions to answer a call and write down what is said on a piece of paper that Marianne can easily locate, and it would show up in a German transcript a few days later. Max complies, but defies orders by actively trying to prove his wife’s innocence, but that’s easier said than done due to conflicting reports.

Why in this position? If there was one type of film this year that was surprisingly absent compared to other years, it’s a war film. I could be wrong but I think this was the only mainstream one (the only other one I can think of wasn’t mainstream, but will appear on this countdown), or at least one that was set during the time of World War Two, and they decided to cast Brad Pitt for what is his fourth film set in the time period of the last few years (the others being Fury, Inglorious Basterds and some scenes in Benjamin Button). That being said, don’t be fooled into thinking that this is a war film, it’s not.

“Allied” is a very interesting film in the sense that is basically a large puzzle piece and you’re never entirely sure about whether the character of Marianne’s allegiance until the very final scene, and I love films that keep you guessing to the end.

The only reason that this didn’t place higher is that I just find Marion Coutillard to be a very boring and lifeless actress. I can’t recall a single performance from her that I have been impressed by. She is very monotone in her delivery, and I don’t think that’s to do with English not being her first language as there are plenty who fit that description and are livelier than her.


44) Nocturnal Animals20161014175110nocturnal_animals_poster

Cast : Jake Gyllenhaal, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Armie Hammer

Plot : Susan (Adams) is an owner of an art gallery who one day receives a manuscript for a novel from her estranged husband, Edward (Gyllenhaal). He dedicates the book for her, causing her to rekindle her feelings and want to meet with him, especially as she is in a neglectful relationship current husband, Hutton (Hammer).

She sits down to read the novel and it tells the story of a man (also Gyllenhaal) who is ran off the road by a gang leader (Taylor-Johnson) and forced to watch as his wife and daughter are abducted, later found raped and murdered. He sets about getting revenge with the help of the local deputy (Shannon).

Why in this position? It’s a bit tricky to talk about this film because it’s effectively a story within a story. We’ll call the Amy Adams section “P1” (short for Part 1), and the Jake Gyllenhaal sub story “P2”.

Had this film just been released as P2, obviously extended otherwise it’d be a very small runtime, there would have actually been a chance that not only would this have featured much higher up, but also a potential top ten candidate. The section starring him, Michael Shannon and Aaron Taylor-Johnson is arguably one of the most emotionally investing parts of a film that I have seen this year.

P2 is expert film making at it’s finest, and I was drawn into it’s story, the look and feel, as well as the acting from the three main characters, especially ATJ, who plays something completely different from what he has done before.

However, as good as P2 is, P1 is the complete opposite and something that I just couldn’t get behind, no matter how hard I tried. It was just generic and any time they cut back from P2 to P1, it felt like someone had slammed the breaks on in an extremely hard manner. It kills any momentum that P2 has built, and one of the reasons for this is that it just isn’t that interesting.

43) Kubo and the Two Stringskubo

Cast : The voices of Art Parkinson, Charlize Theron, Matthew McConaughey, George Takei, Rooney Mara, Ralph Fiennes

Plot : Kubo (Parkinson) is an imaginative child that is told expressively by his mother that he must be home by sundown, or his evil family will be able to find and kill him. One day however he fails to do that and is quickly found by his evil aunts (both Mara), who promises that his grandfather (Fiennes) is coming. Kubo’s mother soon dies.

Distraught, Kubo realises that his only chance is to get his father’s ancient armour. He is soon joined on his journey by a talking monkey (Theron) and a giant cockroach (McConaughey), but whilst they aim to protect him, can the evil power of Kubo’s aunts and grandfather prove too much?

Why in this position? : On the face of it “Kubo and the Two Strings” is a charming look at a coming-of-age tale of a young man against a seemingly overwhelming evil, and it is easily the most visually unique film I saw this year, however, despite having some good jokes in there, two genuinely creepy antagonists (the witch sisters just to confirm) and a likeable main character, the problem with the aforementioned film is that is just completely forgettable.

At the time of writing this mini-review, I watched it less than 24 hours ago and I am already at the point where I can’t remember large parts of the plot, other than there are a LOT of ex-machina moments, and I largely found myself withdrawn from the story throughout.

That’s not to say that “Kubo and the Two Strings” is awful, far from it. It’s animation style is relatively unique and it is one that I never considered for the bottom 10, not even close, but if I was to describe it as anything other than forgettable then I wouldn’t be accurate.


42) The Finest Hoursthe-finest-hours-poster

Cast : Chris Pine, Ben Foster, Holliday Grainger, Eric Bana, Casey Affleck, John Magaro and Kyle Gallner

Plot : Bernie (Pine) is a Coast Guard in Massachusetts, and one day he meets Miriam (Grainger). The two fall in love and plan to get married, but as per regulations he has to ask permission from his commander (Bana). As he approaches him to ask, news comes through that an oil tanking has started sinking.

Due to everyone else being at other rescues, Bernie is sent to rescue the crew along with the largely reluctant Richard (Foster), as well as Richard (Gallner) and Ervin (Magaro).

With time against them, they soon realise that their boat simply won’t be big enough to rescue everyone safely.

Why in this position? : “The Finest Hours” is not a bad film, not by any stretch, but the problem is that it’s just not very interesting or exciting.

Let’s start with the romance section of the beginning of the film. I really liked that part and it’s nice to see a relatively fresh face in the role of the leading lady, something that only ever really happens in the horror genre. Holliday Grainger is arguably the best part about this otherwise generic film.

I love the look and feel of the film though. It feels very coastly, if that’s even a thing, and they take great care to make it at least seem authentic, but the problem is that it’s just kind of there. It’s not really overly interesting, and that’s a big shame as with the cast it should have been a lot better.

I think what lets this film down the most is that the consequences just don’t feel that vital. Whilst you know what’s going on, you never get a real sense of danger and that feeling that they’re not going to achieve rescuing the majority of people. When there are no stakes, there’s nothing driving you towards getting emotionally invested.


41) Bridget Jones’ Babybridget

Cast : Renee Zellweger, Colin Firth, Patrick Dempsey, Sarah Solemani and Sally Phillips

Plot : Bridget (Zellweger) is firmly in her midlife crisis safe and has largely accepted that she’s never going to get with anyone, so one day she joins Miranda (Solemani) in going to a festival. There she meets the hugely successful romance expert, Jack (Dempsey) and the two quickly have sex before Bridget leaves in the morning.

The next day Bridget runs into old flame, Mark (Firth) and it again ends in her having sex. Several weeks later Bridget realises that she is pregnant, but she isn’t sure who the father is and therefore tells both of them that it is their child, but it isn’t long before they find out the truth and there is a rivalry between Mark and Jack.

Why in this position: “Bridget’s Back” bellowed the tag line for yet another trilogy completer, but the problem with any trilogy that you face is that realistically you need to have seen the first two to have any real sense of what is truly going on. I’d never seen either of the first two Bridget Jones films, so this meant that I was effectively going in blind.

Ignoring that I tried to get into the film and there were some bits that I genuinely enjoyed about it. It is a very feel-good comedy, and I do like the concept, afterall, it’s a fairly routine plot as one that has been done before.. The execution Is fine and overall there aren’t really any major complaints that I have with the film’s relatively long run time. The acting is competent and the telling of the story is relatively well structured, even if the ending is a little tooing and froing.

I can’t quite put my finger on why I didn’t like it. It’s not an awful film by any stretch, and I suppose being this high up on the list isn’t a bad thing when you see how many films I’ve watched this year, but is this something that I would actively watch again? No, probably not.

Maybe it’s one of those that you really have to watch with the first two to get in the swing of it.


There is an internal debate that I have had for several months and that it “what is the greatest decade for cinema” in terms of quantity of quality films, and after several months of debate, I have come to the conclusion that the best decade for cinema was the 1980s.

I got onto this debate again over the weekend as I went back to my hometown of Lincoln for a few days. It was the first time I’ve had two days in a row off from all jobs since April and as I turn 32 on September 12th, I decided to celebrate by going home, seeing family and friends, and whilst there I got my present from my parents, the ever reliable present that is money. I decided to invest it in some new Blu-Rays as I haven’t brought myself some for a while, infact it’s only one in since April, which is a low number for me.

After browsing HMV’s five Blu-Rays for £30 section, I came away with the following (I bought more than five);

  • Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure
  • Weird Science
  • Gremlins
  • Krull
  • Some Like it Hot
  • Jane Got a Gun
  • The Gift

I only realised a few hours later that four of my choices were from the 1980s, and it got that debate starting again, and I still come to the conclusion that is the best decade for film. Whilst that is obviously down to personal taste and opinion, I have decided to justify my decision by writing an article about it.


So many classics, and original films at that

Arguably no decade has more classics coming out of it than the 1980s. You’ve got genre defining classics in pretty much every single category, which isn’t something that you can say about most decades. Whilst the 1990s had some timeless films, such as “The Shawshank Redemption” and “Fight Club”, there weren’t that many films that you can look at and say that you’d still be watching them regularly 26 years after the decade ended.

To put this in some sort of context, here are some examples of genres and some of the classics (in my opinion) in that genre. Please note that if there is an asterix next to it, I haven’t actually seen the film and am going purely off it’s reputation.

Science Fiction : ET*, The Terminator, The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, Blade Runner*, Predator, The Abyss, Star Trek 2 : The Wrath of Khan and Aliens.

Horror : The Fly, The Thing, The Shining, Gremlins and The Evil Dead.

Comedy : Ghostbusters, Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, Weird Science, Back to the Future, The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off*, The Blues Brothers*, Big, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Honey I Shrunk the Kids and Police Academy.

Adventure : Raiders of the Lost Ark, Willow, Krull, The Neverending Story and The Goonies.

War : Full Metal Jacket* and Platoon*.

Action : Die Hard and Top Gun.

Drama : Rain Man, Stand by Me, Gandhi and A Passage to India*.


All of those were just of of the top of my head, I’m sure if I delved into it there would be more, but there just some of the classics that came from the 1980s, and in particular, original ideas. Again, without delving into it, there are only three sequels listed above (Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi and Wrath of Khan), and whilst there are a few remakes (The Fly and the Thing), the vast majority are original ideas and a lot of those films, for better or for worse, started franchises.

As time has gone on, original ideas have become few and far between in Hollywood, making most films predictable, especially in our current decade, in which it’s very hard to see a film that isn’t based on a book, another film, isn’t a reboot, remake or sequel, and is just an outright original idea.

Whilst the majority of films in earlier decades were obviously original, in my opinion no decade outside of the 1980s has produced as many original hits that people still watch and inspired as much.

Computer generated special effects were rare!

The 1980s was the last decade in which it was uncommon to see computer generated special effects in films. The vast majority of effects in the 1980s were practical, and because of this it often looked far more realistic.

For example, the only bit of CGI that I have been impressed with recently was in “The Jungle Book”, in which the animals looked exceptionally realistic, but that is definitely a rarity these days and to counter that, a few weeks later I watched “Gods of Egypt”, which I wouldn’t be surprised if it was all done on green-screens as everything looked ridiculously fake.

Practical effects work better for me because they just look more realistic. I’ll grant you that this isn’t always the case, such as the scene in “The Terminator” in which the Terminator is removing his faulty eye, but by in large it just looks better. One such direct example that I can use is the 1982 version of “The Thing” in comparison to it’s 2011 prequel.

On the image below you can see an image of the same character (please note for those that haven’t seen it, in the picture on the left the character is dead, or least so they think). On the left hand side is the character in the 1982 film and has been done entirely with practical effects, compared to the same character in the 2011 prequel, which was a 100% CGI character.


I have nothing against the prequel at all. Whilst it’s nowhere near as good as the first film, it is a reasonable attempt, but the look of this character in particular just takes away any semblance of fear and danger. Whilst you never see the practical effects split-face character alive in the 1982 film, I would be far more terrified if that was coming towards me than the one on the right, and it’s all because the split-face on the right hand side looks fake as hell.

Everything just looked better in the 1980s and more lifeless, and seeing a character that I know is completely CGI personally takes me out of the film a lot, whereas practical effects characters just don’t have the same impact on me whatsoever.

Effects help story telling and if used right, they can be excellent. There are so few films these days that make non-human characters look realistic, whereas the 1980s managed it so well as it was a time when sixty or so years of research had been perfected, and it was only towards the end of the decade that computer generated effects started coming into effect, and what’s more, some of the creatures in the practical effects era were cute as hell, such as Falcor from “The Neverending Story”.


Characters and story came first!

Following on from the above, one thing that a lot of modern day films often make a mistake on is trying to make their film look great, but completely forget about the characters and story. For example, when I first watched “Avatar” I was stunned by how visually brilliant the whole thing was, and it is stunning in Blu-Ray format, but once you take your eyes off of the look of the film, there just isn’t a lot of substance there. The characters are weak and the storyline is just a “meh” situation.

During the majority of the films in my earlier list, you get to know the characters exceptionally well because the story telling allows them to be. The focus was on great storytelling and not how it looked. For example, I only recently watched “Die Hard” for the first time and it worked on many levels, one of which was that it had a great antagonist (which is another film modern day films struggle with might I add). Even now, more than two weeks after watching it for just the one time, I can remember a lot about the characters, even the minor ones, and that’s what I want.

The central antagonist in “Die Hard”, Hans Gruber (played menacingly brilliantly by Alan Rickman), is a great antagonist because not only does he look like winning, but you learn a great deal about his character.


The same can’t be said of a lot of modern day films. For example, I recently went to watch “Lights Out”, literally the day after I watched “Die Hard”, and yet I couldn’t tell you the name of a single character, it was that forgettable, and that’s not just a one off either. Horror films these days are so focused on things such as jump scares, they’ve taken their eyes off of what is most important, the characters. If I don’t care enough to remember the characters names, why should I care about the situation that they’re in.

For example, in the list above is my favourite horror film, “The Fly”. For those that haven’t seen it, watch it. Go and watch it now (well, after you’ve finished reading this). “The Fly” for me is everything that makes not only a great horror film, but a great film in general. I have already covered this film in my review for “The Fly”, but to sum it up the reason “The Fly” works so well is that whilst it only has three characters, you get to know them so well that you start caring about them as people, and you see where each is coming from.

Modern day films tend not to care about the characters, and are only concerned with the look. Now don’t get me wrong, I know that this isn’t the case for all films, but if we take arguably the most popular modern franchise, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, you’ll notice that whilst they are fun, they all lack something that is so important to turning a good movie great, a captivating and believable antagonist. If you don’t think I’m being fair with that statement, take Loki and Zemo out of the franchise and name me one antagonist that looked like winning (Zemo won because he achieved his goal of splitting Steve and Tony).

Infact, I’m going to make a very, very bold statement here. In my opinion, there hasn’t been a single antagonist that you could classify as “timelessly brilliant” since Heath Ledger’s Joker in 2008’s “The Dark Knight”. In an already brilliant film, the Joker is arguably the best part, whereas I can’t think of a single film since that is not only brilliant (which is a small list in itself), but also contains an antagonist on a level that’s even close to that.

That’s not to say that you even necessarily need an antagonist in the film, afterall, “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” doesn’t really have an antagonist, unless you count Ted’s Dad, but even then that’d be a push. Whilst having a bad guy (or girl) isn’t vital, it definitely helps, and modern day films fail miserably to give great antagonists,


Great music!

I’m not going to spend too long on this point but how many films these days have theme tunes that you know as soon as you hear them? I’ve just looked through my entire Blu-Ray collection, about 25% of which are from this decade, and yet there isn’t one that I would look at and think “yeah, that has a theme tune I’ll remember in 26 years” (and just for clarification, I mean original songs, not popular songs just used as the main theme) and yet there are numerous films from the 1980s that you could play back now and most people would recognise them.

For an example of this, I’m just going to leave this here….

And finally, films that people still talk about!

Now, I’m not going to look at films from this decade for this one as it’d be harsh given that we’ve still got over three years of the tens left, but there is no decade which people refer to more than the eighties when talking about films.

For example, there are some decades with a lot of great films in them, and some of the biggest films of all time are from the early days of cinema, but no decade comes close to having as many pop-culture references like the 1980s.


There are so many quotable films that came from the eighties, and they have sunk deep into society. To end this article, here are a few quotes that are still used to this day, even if slightly twisted, that all came from films in the 1980s and I still hear on a semi regular basis in either real life, or modern films paying tribute to them.

“Here’s Johnny” (The Shining)

“No, I am your father” (The Empire Strikes Back)

“I’m too old for this shit” (Lethal Weapon)

“Phone home” (ET)

“Say hello to my little friend” (Scarface)

“Yippee-ki-yay” (Die Hard)

“I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick some ass, and I’m all out of bubblegum!” (They Live)

“Don’t cross the streams” (Ghostbusters)

“We came, we saw, we kicked it’s ass” (Ghostbusters)

“I’ll be back” (Terminator)

“If you build it, they will come” (Field of Dreams)

And with that, I bid you adieu.


So recently another trailer for the upcoming “Ghostbusters” reboot was released and yet again, in my opinion, it failed to look anything more than a poor attempt to bringing new life to the 30+ year old franchise. Reaction to the trailer was poor from the majority, but this was in turn met by a reaction that has plagued the whole marketing for the film, that anyone who doesn’t like the look of the film is just upset that features women in the lead role of an iconic franchise.

Those comments are ironic in many ways, mainly because they’re wrongly assuming that people don’t want to watch the film and will bad mouth it because it stars women, but making that comment is itself sexist.

The original trailer for the new film was released several months ago now and it has already gained the less than favourable distinction of being the most disliked movie trailer ever on Youtube. There are several reasons for this, but not once during the comments did I read someone stating that the film would be poor because it has female leads, instead a lack of genuinely funny moments, racist stereotypes and an exceptionally slow tone made one of the least impressive trailers that you’ll ever see for a Hollywood blockbuster.

You could almost tell that the studio knew that they had messed up with the first trailer as a new one was released within a few days of the first that showed Chris Hemsworth’s character, but seemed to overplay him being in the film, almost like a “shit, they didn’t like that trailer, let’s try and get the comic book nerds on side” type of way of doing it. Now I really like Chris Hemsworth as an actor, I can’t recall watching a film that he was in that I didn’t like him in, and if I’m going to go and watch it then it will be to enjoy another one of his performances again.


Releasing a new trailer didn’t change opinions though and the majority still disliked the trailers, and that’s the point at which some said that people just didn’t like it because it starred four women, and that people didn’t like the film for sexist reasons. What complete and utter nonsense.

Now before someone gets on their high horse and starts accusing me of only not liking the look of the film because it stars four women, take into account that it’s practically impossible for me to be sexist against women because I am a male-to-female transsexual. If I was sexist against women then I certainly wouldn’t be spending a lot of money to become one for the rest of my life.

When they initially announced last year that the new cast would feature “funny women”, I did genuinely struggle to think of actresses that I find funny, and when the cast came out I was unimpressed. Now, I’ve never seen anything with Kate McKinnon or Leslie Jones in it, infact I’d never even heard of either of them before then, so obviously I can’t comment on their level of comedic talent (although judging by the trailers, the latter certainly doesn’t contain any), so instead I’m going to concentrate on Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig.


Several months ago I did review a film starring Wiig, to be more precise “Welcome to Me”, and it was pretty poor, and before I wrote this I looked at Wiig’s filmography, and other than “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” I couldn’t think of anything that I have seen her in that I enjoyed her performance specifically, and possibly the reason was that in that film she played a very serious character, but in the others she has attempted to be somewhat amusing.

Then we get onto Melissa McCarthy, who is about as funny as falling eye first onto a pin. She is like the female version of James Corden in which most of her “humour” seems to come from her weight. For example, in the trailer for “Tammy” (which is diabolical might I add) she is seen struggling to get over a counter, and it’s just not funny, and nor is anything else that she has been in.

Neither of these women strike me as fitting the category of “funny women” and that’s why I was initially skeptical.


If you’re going to claim that you’re going to hire “funny women” then hire women that are actually funny. There are plenty of funny women in Hollywood and I can give you four right now that have proven comedic chops, chemistry built from several years of already working together and are all actually likable, I present the female cast of the brilliant “Parks and Recreation”.


Amy Poehler, Rashida Jones, Aubrey Plaza and Retta (in the order they appear in the picture) were perfectly cast for “Parks and Recreation” and had they been cast in “Ghostbusters” rather than the four aforementioned women then I suspect that there would have been far more excitement towards the film, especially as all four are actually funny.

That’s not to say that the poor looking film is all the fault of the four female leads, afterall, they can only read what they’re given by the writers and director, so if people are criticising a film for poorly told jokes and a poorly paced trailer, you have to also have to look at all of those behind the scenes.

The problem with the film so far is that the ghosts look ridiculously cartoonish and the comedy seems exceptionally slapstick, which isn’t in the tradition of the franchise. Now, I know that the first one was released in 1984 and obviously times have changed, but slapstick comedy has never been truly successful at the cinema since the days of Charlie Chaplin, and I highly doubt that’ll change now. One of the many reasons for the success of the original films is that the writing was nailed on perfect and the jokes weren’t in your face like the trailers have made the new one look.

For me, and a lot of people that I know (both male and female), there isn’t a single redeeming feature about it. I’m not a huge fan of the originals, I do like them but would I actively go out of my way to watch them? Probably not. It looking crap has nothing to do with people not liking women in the leading roles. Certain franchises are crap because they’re simply crap, not just because they have female leads. For example, “Alien” is a great example of a female lead franchise that people love, whereas franchises such as “The Hunger Games” and “Twilight” are awful, but they’re not awful because they have a female lead character (although to be fair Stewart does a fantastic job of dragging the latter even further down), they’re awful because they’re simply poorly made films….especially the latter franchise.

To suggest that people don’t like the look of the new “Ghostbusters” film because it’s female lead is not only sexist in itself, but it’s also downright wrong.




If there is one thing most of us can agree on, most sequel are crap. The main reason for the majority of them being awful is because they are poorly made, have a considerably lower budget than the first, key cast members not returning (for characters that weren’t killed off) and many other reasons

Firstly, let me list some shockingly sequels that are nowhere near as good as the first film. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the film itself is actually bad, but ultimately ANY sequel will be compared to it’s original and none of the below are better than the film that they followed, and believe me, this list could be a LOT bigger

American Psycho 2

Aliens vs Predator : Requiem

Cube 2 : Hypercubecube-21

The Fly 2

Kick Ass 2

Anchorman 2

The Wolverine

Pirates of the Caribbean (all three sequels)


Batman and Robin

The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Reloaded

The Hangover 3

Honey I Blew Up The Kid

Resident Evil

Piranha 3DD (and even the first one wasn’t that good)

Ginger Snaps : Unleashed

…..let’s put it this way, I could be sat here all night writing a list of shockingly bad sequels.

As I briefly touched on earlier, there are numerous reasons why sequels are rarely at least as good as the first film in the series, in some it’s because the stars of the first one haven’t turned for whatever reason, there has been a change in directors, writing, tone, it could be anything, and it’s a shame really because most of the films listed above didn’t need to be made. Most of them followed a film that could have stood on it’s own and that’s the truly sad thing.

The problem these days is that Hollywood is all about money, it’s all about cash-grabbing. Many excellent films would have made brilliant stand alone films before they were given sequels that they didn’t need. Franchises such as The Matrix, Pirates of the Carribean and several others started off with very enjoyable films before their reputations were somewhat ruined by the sequels that followed. The reason that they were given sequels that they didn’t really need is money. The Matrix made $463 million and at the time of it’s release, which although not massive by today’s standards, was a huge amount in the 1990s.

Of course, you don’t just get cash-grabs in franchises that started off well, with Transformers being a good example. The fourth installment, Age of Extinction, received box office receipts of over $1 billion, the only film of 2014 that grossed over the billion mark. What makes this even remarkable was widely considered to be one of the worst films with a wide release in 2014. The four releases have seen total box office receipts of a mammoth £3,757,097,628, that despite two of the four films achieving ratings of less than 20% on Rotten Tomatoes and one of the others only getting 36%. The fifth and sixth installments have already been announced as well.

The last example I will give you on the subject of cash grabs is from a franchise that I have only truly liked one entry for, even so much as hating a few entries, and yet I still keep going back to watch them when they come out, the Resident Evil film franchise. I actually really liked the first film. It’s largely unrelated to the games but it is still one of my favourite zombie films and to this day, it is the ONLY film I have ever sat and watched with the commentary on. Now, the way it ended made it seem like a sequel was inevitable, and that’s fine, but the problem is that they just keep on pumping them out and they just keep getting worse and worse and worse. Fortunately the sixth one is planned to be the last one and in a way I am relieved.

Every sequel has been exceedingly poorly received by pretty much everyone and it’s not simply because they’re largely unrelated to the games, it’s because they are poorly made. Here is a run down of the four sequels so far and why they were so poor, yet still kept getting made.

Resident Evil Apocalypse

Budget : $45millionResident-evil-apocalypse-poster

Return : £129,394,837

Rotten Tomatoes Score : 21% (124 reviews)

The failed for many, many, many reasons, such as that it isn’t really that scary, is very much an action film, has an annoying child character and probably worst of all, turns Nemesis, one of the franchises’ most infamous and loved antagonists, into a fucking good guy.

At the end of the film, Nemesis, who was mutated from a guy called Matt from the first film, starts fighting the bad guys. This is the same character that would chase you relentless in the game and destroyed anything in it’s path to kill your character. He is a constant menace in the film and takes literally several battles to eventually defeat, and even in his final form, a large, ambling blob, his sole mission is to kill you.

So once you’ve turned your film’s main fearsome antagonist into a good guy, where can you possibly go from there?

It is the lowest rated out of all five films so far on Rotten Tomatoes but does surprisingly have an average rating of 6.2 on IMDB.



Resident Evil Extinction

Budget : $45millionresident_evil_extinction

Return : $147,717,837

Rotten Tomatoes Score : 22% (95 reviews)

The third installment in the franchise is one of the least interesting for me as nothing really happens. I also lost a lot of faith in the series with this entry because they effectively did whatever the film equivalent of an in-game cheat by turning Alice pretty much invincible.

The virus she was given has suddenly turned her super human and you no longer feel that she’s any real sense of danger.

Then we get onto a massive nonsense with a massive cloning operation, meaning by the end that Alice is now not only practically invincible, there are hundreds of her. Hundreds of invincible Alices and I’m supposed to still feel that there is a genuine sense of threat?

It just made a mockery of the thing and the film was filled with remarkably poor development problems. For example, when you get bit in the Resident Evil film universe, you have an hour or two before the virus kills and then reanimates you, yet the LJ character gets bitten and is still human several days later. What the hell?

Out of all five films, it’s between this and Retribution for my least favourite.


Resident Evil Afterlife

Budget : $60millionResident_Evil-_Afterlife

Return : $296,221,667

Rotten Tomatoes Score : 25% (95 reviews)

LOOK AT THAT FINANCIAL RETURN! Making almost five times what it cost is remarkable for any film, let alone a film that cost that much to make. It is the most profitable out of the five films so far, but that might be in part because it was the first to be released in 3D.

I’m not going to lie, out of the four sequels this is easily my favourite and the reason is that it’s the first time in the series that they actually do a few things that are similar to the computer game series. For example, the character of Chris is introduced whilst in a cage, coming from a shadowy part to come and meet Alice in a menacing a cryptic way. This is very similar to how several characters in the games are introduced, especially in some of the earlier additions of the game series.

I do also like that it finished off a lot of the nonsense that the third film introduced, such as killing all of the clones within the first scene, turning Alice human again so that she had a realistic chance of dying.

My one MAIN problem with this entry is that I felt like I was slow-motioned to death. This starts in the credits sequence when you go to Tokyo and a girl who has just been zombified is stood in the middle of a crossing when she suddenly lunges on a nearby pedestrian and bites him. Don’t get me wrong, I loved the scene because it’s shot in a very stylish way, but that whole action of her stood there, people walking by and her then going for this guy is probably only about 10 seconds worth of actual footage, but is slowed to the point where it actually takes nearly 3 minutes to show.

Resident Evil Retribution

Budget : $65millionresident-evil-retribution

Return : $240,159,257

Rotten Tomatoes Score : 31% (65 reviews)

Despite being the best rated sequel on Rotten Tomatoes, this is, in my opinion, the worst by a country mile.

It is so pointless, pathetic and lazy that it just kept on getting itself in a tangle. As I said in the mini-review of Afterlife, one of the best things that they did in that was get rid of all of the nonsense with the clones, and yet this film re-introduces the concept to an incredibly ridiculous level.

It brings back several characters from the first film, namely Rain and One, but as clones that don’t know Alice and they try and kill her, and worst of all for me, another annoying child that becomes attached to Alice and follows her around….oh, and she’s fucking deaf.

Retribution is an abomination of a sequel because it all takes place inside of a hologram environment, and introduces several characters from the games but treats them like a parody. For example, Ada Wong (the woman in the red dress in the picture) in the game is a very dangerous woman, but also has a very human element that makes her very likeable, whereas the character in the film is as exciting as an ironing board. Leon Kennedy, one of the main protagonists from the games, is relegated in this to effectively being a bland pervert, and Barry Burton is just there for no apparent reason.


So, along with the first film, which I haven’t reviewed, you may be wondering why films that only have an average rating of 26.4% (33% for RE and 21%, 22%, 25% and 31% respectively) keep getting made, it’s because of the finances. I mentioned in the Afterlife section about it making almost five times what it cost to actually make, and the trend of large profits was throughout the entirity of the five films.

The five films have a budget of $248 million, and made a return worldwide of £915,934,667, a return of 369%. It’s obvious from that why they keep getting made. They don’t give a shit if they made an awful film because people keep going back, myself included annoyingly.

Now, you may be wondering why I writing an article about sequels, it’s because this week the third installment in the Ghostbusters trilogy moved a step closer as the all-female cast was announced. Ghostbusters is one of my favourite franchises after growing up watching four guys running around shooting ghosts, it’s just a fun movie and the fact it has a rating of 7.8/10 on IMDB at the time of writing shows that I am not on my own with this.

What made the original two films so successful is that you could actually believe that Dan Ackroyd and Harold Ramis could be scientists, especially the latter, and the comedy is subtle. It’s not in your face, it’s not stupid or farcial, it’s smart comedy. Even the very dark elements of the film, such as Louis and Dana turning into demons, were highly enjoyable for people of all ages. It’s one of the few films with a PG rating that can be enjoyed by everyone. It’s got everything, comedy, horror, (mild) violence, drama, romance and a giant man made of marshmallows, what’s not to like?

I am dreading the new Ghostbusters film because I don’t think it will have the same artistic style of comedy that the original had. Now, I’ve never heard of Kate McKinnon or Leslie Jones before so I can’t fairly assess either. I have seen Kristen Wiig in a few films, namely “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” and “Anchorman 2” (funnily enough, another awful sequel) and her performance wasn’t memorable in either to be honest. In TSLOWM she was a bit bland and in Anchorman 2 her role was a bit stupid, but at least she has flexibility.

The reason I am dreading it can be summed in two words, Melissa McCarthy. Now, I am fairly open minded with regards to actors and actresses that are seemingly one-dimensional, afterall, later on I will be talking about a film starring an actor who has been famed for his one-dimensional acting, but for me Melissa McCarthy offers precisely fuck all in terms of genuine quality, heart or warmth in her acting “ability”. Every single joke she does revolves around her weight, and most of the trailer for “Tammy” was her trying to climb over a counter but struggling because she is fact.

She is single handedly capable of ruining the new Ghostbusters film. Don’t get me wrong, I will more than likely still go and watch it, but there is virtually no way that it is going to be better than the original films, and for those saying that it should be considered on it’s own merits, it’s impossible. For people of my generation, Ghostbusters will always have a special place in my heart and whilst I won’t claim to watch it on a regular basis, it is genuinely one of my favourite films from my youth.

So, based on that, I’m going to move on talking three other films where sequels and/or remakes are not needed, but unfortunately are probably going to have at some point for various reasons. This is not necessarily to say that the sequels/remakes will be bad, but these three films/franchises do not need another installment, but one has either been confirmed or by the sounds of it, is exceptionally likely.

American Psycho

Director : Mary Harron

Starring : Christian Bale, Justin Theroux, Josh Lucas, Chloe Sevigney, Reese Witherspoon and Jared Leto.

Yes, that’s right, there has been serious talk about remaking this incredible film based off of the novel by Brett Easton Ellis. As the film that arguably launched Christian Bale into the A-List category, this 1999 flick follows businessman Patrick Bateman in the 1980s. By day he is a seemingly normal businessman, although you never see what he actually does for work, but by night he succumbs to his bloodlust and kills people in a variety of gruesome ways, including slicing someone’s head open with a swing of an axe, dropping a chainsaw onto a prostitute from the top of a stairwell and many others.

Patrick begins to descend into madness as he struggles to keep his two lives separate, especially after killing one of his co-workers, but the ending is very ambiguous as to whether Patrick just imagined everything, meaning he is either psychotic because he did all of these acts, or because he imagined doing them.

American Psycho is a triumph of cinema and is a true masterpiece of film. Christian Bale gives an Oscar worthy performance as Bateman, especially as he dances to Huey Lewis and the News whilst putting on a raincoat to murder his next victim.

The film already had a less than successful sequel starring Mila Kunis but now there has been talk in recent years or remaking this. Yes, they’re talking about remaking a film that was only made 16 years ago. If it had been a largely unknown film then I would understand (plus it give me the opportunity to review it properly and I would love to do that but can’t due to the nature of the site) why someone would want to remake it, but it’s not.

It has 299,467 votes and 1,022 reviews on IMDB (at the time of writing), and made $34.3 million at the American box office and numerous awards. Calling it an unknown film would be ridiculous, and the ONLY justification I can think of for a remake is that the film doesn’t show a few of the more controversial moments of the book (such as Patrick forcing a life rat into a woman’s vagina) and someone might want that.

Either way, a remake wouldn’t be better than the original and would therefore be pointless.









The Bill and Ted franchiseBill_&_Ted

Director : Stephen Herek (EA) or Peter Hewitt (BJ)

Starring : Alex Winter, Keanu Reeves, George Carlin, Amy Stock-Poynton and William Sadler

Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure was followed by a Bogus Journey and that was it for the Wyld Stallions. Unlike a lot of successful franchises, they knew when to stop. Winter and Reeves were both still young go on and do other things and not be typecast, and although it was still enjoyable, Bogus Journey wasn’t quite as fun as Excellent Adventure.

The franchise follows slackers Bill (Winter) and Ted (Reeves) as they are destined to change the world into a better place, bringing peace to the universe through rock and roll, but they don’t know this and are set to fail their high school history class. Rufus (Carlin) is sent back in time to help them pass by giving them a phone booth to learn about history first hand.

Instead of simply learning from the historical figures, Bill and Ted decide to actually bring several historical figures back to the modern day to help them. Amongst those historical figures are Billy the Kid, Napoleon, Joan of Arc, Abraham Lincoln, Socrates and several others. They eventually pass their history class.

Several years after the Excellent Adventure, the duo haven’t really learned from it and are struggling to reach their potential. They soon encounter robot versions of themselves sent from the future and are quickly killed by their counterparts. They wander around in the afterlife, including trips to both heaven and hell, but with the help of the Grim Reaper (Sadler) they eventually overcome their robot counterparts and the man who sent them. After spending some time with Eddie Van Halen, Bill and Ted finally reach their potential and bring about peace.

That was a nice little ending for me, they reach their potential and effectively closed the door on anymore sequels….or so we thought.

Excellent Adventure and Bogus Journey are two of my favourite films from that era of the late 80s and early 90s. It is one of the few genuinely fun movies out there that you can just sit back, relax and enjoy what you’re about to watch, especially Excellent Adventure. It is like most films from that era and celebrates it, rather than mocking it in some sense.

It is also a very rare film where Keanu Reeves doesn’t actually look like he’s not enjoying himself. Whereas Winter hasn’t really had a big on screen career at all, Reeves has been in the main stream attention on various occasions since Excellent Adventure came out, with big roles in 1991’s Point Break, 1994’s Speed, 1999’s The Matrix and several others, but he has never truly been a mega-star and therefore his returning to a franchise from early in his career wouldn’t be out of the question.

However, how likely is it that there will be a Bill and Ted 3? Well there have been numerous occasions over the last five years where Winter and Reeves have both gone on record saying that it is close, including confirmations of scripts being completed, directors being attached  and various other things. There hasn’t been any major news since late 2013 but it still seems likely that it will be going ahead at some point.

Out of the three films I am mentioning, this would probably be the one that I would most like a sequel for, but there are still a few things that make me nervous about it.

Reeves has said that the film won’t be a reboot and will be a continuation of the story of these two characters and I love that. It has also been set that it would feature a lot of the cast of both films, and probably most importantly, Reeves and Winter themselves. Reeves has said that they’re not going to mess about if it goes ahead and it will feature the characters in their 40s, but even though they’re grown up, they aren’t mentally grown up, and that’s what worries me.

Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t mind seeing 40something Bill and Ted, but the thing that really worries me is that the way the second film ended showed them both as young fathers, married to their girlfriends and considerably more mature after an 18 month spell with Eddie Van Halen and their experiences travelling through time and battling robot versions of themselves, having them as immature 40 year olds would ruin that ending in many ways because it would lose a lot of the meaning of the end to Bogus Journey.

At least it wouldn’t be a reboot.



Fight Club


Director : David Fincher

Starring : Brad Pitt, Ed Norton, Helena Botham-Carter, Jared Leto and Meatloaf

David Fincher’s 1999 masterpiece based on the 1996 novel by Chuck Palahniuk followed an unnamed narrator (Norton) as he struggles through life. One day he meets a nihilist called Tyler Durden (Pitt). Soon the two start an underground boxing club in which there of few rules (although I am breaking two currently).

The narrator soon quits his job in remarkable fashion before Fight Club turns into a movement called Project Mayhem. The goal of Project Mayhem is to destroy anything that glorifies commercialism, such as destroying a Starbucks and a piece of corporate art at the same time.

As things spiral out of control, Durden and the narrator soon come confront their issues with each other, wherein the latter realises that he and Durden are actually the same person.

Fight Club is one of my favourite films, infact it’s definitely in the top two and the only film that challenges is the aforementioned “Willow”. I often debate which of the two of them is actually my favourite film and it takes a lot for anything to even come close.

Now, I know a few of you will be saying that this film would never have a chance of having a sequel for numerous reasons, one of which is the big twist where Norton’s character has multiple personality disorder. The film, rather uniquely, closed off all storylines and seemingly left no room for a sequel, so where have I got the idea that there would be a potential sequel from?

I’m not going to lie, when I saw the headline “Fight Club 2 to arrive in 2015” in 2013, I was both really excited and dreading it at the same time. Now, the headline is in reference to Chuck Palahniuk writing a sequel to his novel, but in a generation full of films that are based on books, it seems almost inevitable that the film sequel will inevitably happen.

Pahalniuk has revealed details of the sequel and to be far, it doesn’t sound overly bad, but it doesn’t sound a lot like the first film at all and has been described as having several absurdly comical moments.

Speaking to Hustler magazine, Pahalniuk stated “”The sequel will be told from the– at first– submerged perspective of Tyler Durden as he observes the day-to-day tedium of the narrator’s life.  Because 20th Century-Fox created the convention of calling the protagonist Jack, I’m calling him Cornelius.  He’s living a compromised life with a failing marriage, unsure about his passion for his wife.  The typical midlife bullshit.  Likewise, Marla is unsatisfied and dreams of accessing the wild man she’d once fallen in love with.  She tampers with the small pharmacy of drugs that her husband needs to suppress Tyler, and– go figure– Tyler reemerges to terrorize their lives.”

I’m not sure how I feel about it to be honest, I will reserve judgement until I had read the 10-part graphic novel sequel about whether it would make a good film, but realistically “Fight Club” shouldn’t have a sequel in film form.

At least it won’t be another shit computer game based on the film.




So after looking at three sequels or reboots that I’m not entirely sure would be a good thing, I’m going to end this article with a number, but first of all, let’s see what you think that the number is based on this question….how many films that are currently scheduled for release in 2015 (including those that have already been released) at the cinema are sequels or remakes?

The answer…..30.

Taken 3, The Woman in Black : Angel of Death, Hot Tub Time Machine 2, The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Divergent : Insurgent, Furious 7, Paul Blarts 2, Avengers : Age of Ultron, Mad Max : Fury Road, Pitch Perfect 2, Insidious 3, Jurassic World, Ted 2, Magic Mike XXL, Terminator Genisys, Minions, Mission Impossible 5, Poltergeist, Point Break, Fantastic Four, Sinister 2, Hitman : Agent 47, The Maze Runner : Scorch Trials, Hotel Transylvania 2, Paranormal Activity : The Ghost Dimension, Spectre, Hunger Games : Monkingjay – Part 2, Star Wars : The Force Awakens and Alvin and the Chipmunks 4.